Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:40 -0500 (EST) | From | "Robert P. J. Day" <> | Subject | Re: can someone explain "inline" once and for all? |
| |
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> writes: > > > first, there appear to be three possible ways of specifying an > > inline routine in the kernel source: > > > > $ grep -r "static inline " . > > $ grep -r "static __inline__ " . > > $ grep -r "static __inline " . > > > > i vaguely recall that this has something to do with a distinction > > between C99 inline and gcc inline > > No, it doesn't (there is no C99 compatible inline in gcc before > 4.3). It has to do with the fact that inline is not a keyword in > C89, so you need to use a different spelling when you want to stay > compatible with strict C89.
ok, so based on that and a bit more surfing, i see that either "__inline" or "__inline__" are acceptable variants in gcc, and there is no distinction between them, is that right?
but in terms of strict C89 compatibility, it would seem to be a bit late for that given:
$ grep -r "static inline " .
no?
rday - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |